CONS: All third act; steep learning curve for those who have seen none of the movies; by turns too sappy and too emotionally detached; still too long; despite tightening, still difficult to follow the number of characters.

What a long…well, long trip it’s been. Ten years after Warner Brothers took the chance of filming all seven of J.K. Rowling’s fantasy novels to encompass a complete unified series, complete with the same cast (save one, Richard Harris as Dumbledore, who died after filming Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets) and much of the same crew (screenwriter Steven Kloves has penned seven of the films; Peter Yates has directed four), it finally draws to a close with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. That it has managed to maintain such a tight focus on its vision, to say nothing of a relatively consistent level of quality, over its decade-long run demands no small amount of admiration, if not exactly respect. Honestly, I cannot think of a single series that has managed the same. Moreover, this is a series that has grown up with its audience growing darker as it has progressed. My youngest son was a year old when Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone opened in theaters; as I write this review, he is eleven and is standing in line with his mother to catch a midnight screening of the new adventure.

That said, for me the series has always been something of a mixed bag. As I said in my review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, earlier entries either clung too faithfully to the source material or played more like a greatest hits of scenes than an actual movie (more on this later), often making them either a senseless jumble (as in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) or a Cliff’s Notes version of the work adapted (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). Having read the novels, I’m sure would greatly enhance one’s pleasure of the movies (I’ve read and, for the record, enjoyed the first three), though said pleasure should, in theory, come from the work itself.

And by those standards, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 poses a unique challenge. After all, it is not a complete movie, but the third act of the previous one, and therefore cannot (and, frankly, should not) be viewed without having seen Part 1. Indeed, it is all third act, and so must begin at a running pace from the opening credits, where Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) break into the Wizarding Bank Gringott’s in order to steal and destroy the second horcrux that will help them ultimately defeat Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). Getting there requires them to break in in disguise, with Hermione taking the likeness of Beatrix Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), and taking a railcar (in a scene far too reminiscent of the mine chase in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) through the caverns beneath the bank to Helga’s vault, where the second horcrux, a chalice, is kept. A wizarding battle follows, with Harry, Ron, and Hermione escaping via dragon. The scene bubbles with energy, and Yates appears to have found his footing in drawing out the suspense and action, this time making it far more clear what exactly is happening, both in the vault (which fills with duplicate chalices as the trio attempts to secure and destroy the main one) and out, but it also represents the movie’s key problem: unless one is familiar with the characters and the settings, fully engaging with the scene (and the rest of the movie) proves difficult.

Nonetheless, they destroy the horcurx as Voldemort (who has just obtained the Elder Wand) mounts his siege of Hogwarts. Battles ensure, and some are quite good, though they are secondary to the confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. They must be, I’m sure, yet this constantly shifting focus dampens the impact, and, again, should engage the viewer more than it does, despite the flawless execution. Minor characters get several token heroics, but except for Neville Longbottom’s (Matthew Lewis) actions as the Hogwarts rebellion’s leader, none generate the kind of excitement that should be part of this climactic battle.

On a strictly technical level, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 looks flawless…but then, each movie has. On the level of acting craft, each cast member admirably performs their duties, from series stalwarts Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) and Alan Rickman (Snape) to more recent additions like Bonham Carter…but then, that’s been the case from the first movie. So why have I been so ambivalent?

Perhaps because, as I said, the movies often play more like a greatest hits compilation of scenes from the books than fully realized movies themselves. In this, they resemble David Lynch’s Dune, where Lynch filmed whole scenes from Frank Herbert’s novel without anything coalescing into a unified whole. The difference is that Lynch didn’t understand the story of Dune. Yates and Kloves understand the story of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (as well as the other movies in the series), but felt that not including individual scenes, many of which might be fan favorites, would have met with audience outrage. But by giving the audiences precisely what they want, they have hampered their final product. Judicious cutting and shaping would have made Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (or Part 1 or almost any of the other movies) stronger.

And perhaps packed far more of a real emotional punch. Characters die during the final battle at Hogwarts, but their deaths are treated with very little grief. Maybe it’s just me, but if I was fighting alongside my classmates, people I have come to love, admire, and cherish over the course of six years, I likely would be far more devastated than I ever saw any character here.

Does any of it matter? Perhaps not. The audience with whom I saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 cheered and shed tears in all of the right places. As the credits rolled, I realized that this was a movie (and a series) that knew its audience. Almost everybody present had either read the books or was reading them. And whatever they were looking for onscreen they seem to have found. This conclusion to the series (and make no mistake, unlike other series, it has a conclusion) must be bittersweet. Folks like me must possess some element of relief that, for all of its visual bravado and single-mindedness of purpose, for all of its consistency and fidelity to the source material, it’s finally over.

I’m reading reviews and in a way it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. It’s the last half of the last film so I’m seeing it whether it’s good or not. (Kind of like watching the Star Wars II and III films–they were dreck but I had to do it.)

I can’t imagine anyone going to see this film without catching all of the others first. But then, I can’t understand why you haven’t read all the books before watching the films, either! It certainly helps with understanding the plot and following all the characters. Though, as with any book adaptation, you miss out on some of the cool secondary characters (I would love to have seen more from the Weasly twins.)

Thanks for your take–I won’t go in thinking it’s a masterpiece, but it’s good to know I’ll probably enjoy it.

I saw the movie yesterday afternoon. I can really see why the characters didn’t react to the deaths. Pacing.

So many of the major characters were massacred in the attack on Hogwarts that the movie would have come to a dead stop a bunch of times otherwise, and Harry and his friends have a very tight time frame to stop Lord V. Poor Ron doesn’t even have time to mourn his big brother.

The book allows the reader and the characters a bit more breathing room and some time to mourn the loss of each character.

This novel also has a much more epic structure to it than the other novels because the whole wizard world is at war, it’s not just Harry and friends, so a lot of stuff happens outside of Harry’s viewpoint.

The audience in my viewing were surprisingly quiet. Just a few chuckles at funny line, but not a peep at the death of Lord V or any of the other major plot moments. Maybe everyone was just sad at seeing the series come to the end again with the movie versions.

It was okay. The only good thing I can say about it is I hope my wife finally begins to STFU about these books and movies. 10 years of non-stop HP obsession is something I cannot even comprehend. I just have no interest in this IP, or child witches wavering wands about and uttering silly words, or quidditch, etc. YMMV.

Recognition

TSP On This Day

"Best of the Year" lists start appearing as early as November, so we are perhaps a little late in asking folks around the community: Q: What were the best genre-related books, movies and/or shows you consumed in 2009? [Also added was this note: They don't have to have been released in 2009. Feel free to choose any combination of genres Continue Reading →

"To write fully believable, near future science fiction today, you almost need to be voracious antisocial polymath, deeply conversant in half a dozen technical fields, as well as familiar with ongoing social, economic, and environmental change." So says Jason Stoddard when he talks about The Burden of the Modern Science Fiction Writer. He makes an interesting point. If science fiction Continue Reading →

REVIEW SUMMARY: A near-identical translation of the source material, with the same problems, too. MY RATING: BRIEF SYNOPSIS: Paul tries to help his younger, troubled brother Don, who is being followed by an alien, clean up his act. MY REVIEW: PROS: A near-exact translation of the Jonathan Lethem story on which it is based. CONS: Suffers from the same Continue Reading →

Richard Davies from AbeBooks sent along this list of the most expensive books that AbeBooks.com sold between November 24 & December 7, 2008. What does it say that most of these are genre titles, I wonder?Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama - $5,000 - Signed by both the President-Elect and Michelle Obama.Space Odyssey Series by Arthur C. Clarke - Continue Reading →